JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd October, 2001, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,85,505/- in favour of claimant respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant') and against appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation' hereinafter referred to) has preferred this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as also gone through pleadings of the parties and evidence produced before the Tribunal as available with the learned counsel for the claimant. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in holding respondent No. 2 Bajrang Lal, driver of the Corporation's bus negligent for the said accident. It is further contended that mini truck which was proceeding ahead of the bus suddenly applied the brake which resulted in collision of the bus with mini truck and, therefore, the truck driver was negligent and responsible for happening of the accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant compensation which is against well settled principle governing assessment of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant supported the finding of the Tribunal. 5. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 22nd August, 1997 the claimant was travelling from Hardwar to Bikaner in bus No. RJ 07 P-1452, owned by the Corporation, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 2 Bajrang Lal, while the said bus was plying in area of village Udasar. The driver of the bus wanted to overtake the mini truck No. RJ-1 4 G-2345 which was going ahead the said bus. The driver of the truck suddenly applied the brake and the said bus hit the truck from behind. Due to this accident claimant Ramesh Kumar, who was occupant passenger of the bus sustained following injuries on his person. 1. An abrasion 0.8 cm x 9.5 cm on nose clotted blood is present over it. Nature of injury : Simple by blunt. 2. Due to this accident claimant Ramesh Kumar, who was occupant passenger of the bus sustained following injuries on his person. 1. An abrasion 0.8 cm x 9.5 cm on nose clotted blood is present over it. Nature of injury : Simple by blunt. 2. Distal half portion of left lateral incisor tooth in upper jaw is missing. Bleeding present from the broken surface of tooth. Nature of injury : Grievous by blunt. 3. Complains of pain over left hip. Tender- ness is present. Advice X-ray. 6. The report of radiologist (X-ray report) shows fracture - dislocation of left hip and hence the injury is grievous in nature. 7. For the injuries sustained, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation. The appellants filed written statement and averred that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, which was going ahead of the bus at the relevant time of the accident. This accident was reported to Police Station, Sardarshahar by the claimant vide F.I.R. Exhibit-1. After investigation police filed charge sheet Exhibit-2 against driver of the bus (respondent No. 2) for offence under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. 8. The claimant was medically examined by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sardarshahar, who prepared injury report Exhibit- 9. Before the Tribunal the claimant appeared as witness AW-1. No other witness was produced by the claimant. The appellants produced the driver of the bus Bajrang Lai NAW-1. The claimant in his deposition before the Tribunal stated that the mini truck was going ahead of the bus in which he was travelling. The driver of the bus was driving the bus at a great speed and negligently. The said bus hit the truck going ahead of it. Due to which there was a violent jerk and passengers sitting in the said bus sustained injuries. He fell down from the seat and sustained fracture of hip, one of his teeth was broken and there was bleeding from his nose. He was first taken to the Government Hospital, Sardarsahar and, therefore, to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner where he underwent operation of his hip. He proved F.I.R. Ex.-1, charge-sheet Ex.-2, site map Ex.-3, site inspection note Ex.-4, medical inspection report Ex.-5, injury report Ex.-9, bus ticket Ex.-10, prescription of sardarsahar hospital Ex.-12, medical certificate Ex.-13, advice letter of Dr. He was first taken to the Government Hospital, Sardarsahar and, therefore, to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner where he underwent operation of his hip. He proved F.I.R. Ex.-1, charge-sheet Ex.-2, site map Ex.-3, site inspection note Ex.-4, medical inspection report Ex.-5, injury report Ex.-9, bus ticket Ex.-10, prescription of sardarsahar hospital Ex.-12, medical certificate Ex.-13, advice letter of Dr. P. K. Sethi Ex.-15, prescription slips Ex.-18, Ex.- 20, Ex.-21, Ex.-22 to Ex.-24, CT scan Ex. 25 and 26 and X-ray plate Ex.-27. 9. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the said accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver respondent No. 2 Bajrang Lai and, accordingly the Tribunal held respondent No. 2 the driver of the bus negligent and responsible for the said accident. 10. I have carefully gone through the statement of AW-1 Ramesh Kumar, charge-sheet, F.I.R. and other relevant documents, which corroborate the evidence of the claimant. As against this the driver of the bus Bajrang Lai deposed that due to sudden applying of the brake by truck driver, the bus collided with the truck at its rear. 11. From the evidence produced by the parties, undisputedly, this accident is of hitting from behind. The driver of the bus had a clear vision to see the vehicle going along ahead and it is the duty of the bus driver to keep a reasonable distance while driving the bus carrying number of passengers. The driver failed to take reasonable care while discharging his duty and made an attempt to overtake the truck without proper signal from the truck driver. Applying of the brake warrants care and caution while going on the road and, therefore, the bus driver ought to have anticipated such contingency while driving bus on the road. More so, from relevant evidence of the claimant, it has been established that the driver of the bus was driving the bus at a great speed and negligently. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of AW-1 Ramesh Kumar in this regard. The explanation put forward by the respondent driver of the bus is highly improbable. From the facts, it is evident that the driver of the bus without a proper signal from the driver of the truck attempted to overtake the truck and in that process he hit the truck at its rear. The explanation put forward by the respondent driver of the bus is highly improbable. From the facts, it is evident that the driver of the bus without a proper signal from the driver of the truck attempted to overtake the truck and in that process he hit the truck at its rear. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the truck driver was contributory negligent has no merit in presence of the evidence discussed hereinabove. Under these circumstances, it was not obligatory for the claimant to implead the driver, owner and insurer of the truck in the claim petition when they are not at fault. More so, at any rate the claimant has not contributed to the said accident and, therefore, the plea of contributory negligence raised by the appellants is unsustainable and, therefore, under the circumstances, no fault can be found with the truck driver. I find no error in the finding of the Tribunal holding the bus driver negligent for causing the said accident and, accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 holding solely the driver of the bus negligent for causing the said accident is hereby affirmed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued and assailed the finding of the Tribunal with regard to issue No. 2, which relates to assessment of compensation. From injury report Ex.-9, it is evident that the claimant sustained there injuries as discussed above. One of injuries is on the nose which is simple in nature. Second injury is distal half portion of left lateral incisor tooth in upper jaw missing. The third injury resulted in fracture and dislocation of left hip. These two injuries are grievous in nature. For the treatment of these injuries he was, in the first instance, treated at Sardar Patel Medical College and P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner from 22nd August, 1997 to 28th August, 1997. He was operated upon on 22nd August, 1997 itself. Again the claimant was admitted to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner on 26th September, 1997 and was discharged on 9th October, 1997. He was further treated by Dr. P. K. Sethi, an Orthopaedician at Jaipur. The prescription of Dr. P. K. Sethi dated 9th July, 1998 is on record, which shows that the claimant sustained posterior dislocation of left hip with fractured acetabular-roof in August, 1997. He was operated and fixed with a reconstruction plate. He was further treated by Dr. P. K. Sethi, an Orthopaedician at Jaipur. The prescription of Dr. P. K. Sethi dated 9th July, 1998 is on record, which shows that the claimant sustained posterior dislocation of left hip with fractured acetabular-roof in August, 1997. He was operated and fixed with a reconstruction plate. The condition of hip mobility and function was good with no evidence of AVN (A Vascular Necrosis) of femure head. The claimant placed on record medical certificate issued by Orthopaedics Department of Government Medical College and P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. dated 5th December, 1997, wherein the professor of Or- thopaedics Department found the claimant fit to resume his duties w.e.f. 5th December, 1997. The claimant was also admitted to Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital cum Medical Research Institute, Jaipur for removal of plate from left hip on 31st August, 1999. Plate was removed on 3rd August 1999. Plate was removed on 3rd September, 1999 and was discharged on 8th September, 1999. At the time of discharge from Santoka Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Orthopadician treating observed that the hip movement good range and limb length equal. The follow up card of the institute is on record. He was advised complete rest from 30th August, 1999 to 8th October, 1999 and 9th October, 1999 to 25th October, 1999. Health Certificate dated 26th October, 1999 was issued by the Santoka Durlabhji Memorial Hospital cum Medical Research Institute, Jaipur, wherein it was mentioned that the claimant remained under-treatment under the said institute as an outdoor case from 30th August, 1999 to 25th October, 1999 and is now fit to join his duties. The claimant has also produced a certificate issued by Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bikaner Division dated 10th December, 1997 mentioning therein that the claimant Ramesh Kumar is an employee of the LIC on the post of Development Officer. He remained on leave due to the accident from 22nd August, 1997, to 4th December, 1997 total for 105 days on medical leave. Photostate copy of assessment of income under Section 143 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, dated 30th September, 1997 and 10th August, 1998 were produced by the claimant. 13. He remained on leave due to the accident from 22nd August, 1997, to 4th December, 1997 total for 105 days on medical leave. Photostate copy of assessment of income under Section 143 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, dated 30th September, 1997 and 10th August, 1998 were produced by the claimant. 13. Thus from the evidence of the claimant, it is established that due to the said accident the claimant sustained injuries noticed above for which he was treated at various hospitals, which is evident from the prescription slips, discharge tickets, follow up card issued by various hospitals. The claimant in his deposition stated that he is Development Officer employed with L.I.C. of India at Bikaner as a permanent employee. The certificate dated 17th November, 1999 issued by the employer also corroborates his statement and establishes that for the treatment of hip inquiry, sustained by the claimant in the said accident he remained on medical leave for 105 days in all. The certificate of fitness issued by professor of Orthopaedics Department, Government Hospital, Bikaner dated 5th December, 1997 also shows that he was declared fit to join duties w,e.f. 5th December, 1997. The claimant has not disclosed his monthly salary, which is paid by his employer. However, it is evident that he is on the post of Development Officer and salary is payable to the Development Officer in the year 1997 is in the pay-scale of As, 3435-190-3625-215-3840- 230-7520. Thus, his monthly income including D.A. and other allowances could not have been more than Rs. 11,000/-. The Development Officer gets incentive bonus for the work done by the insurance-agents appointed through him, though incentive bonus is paid on the basis of policies taken by the various persons through agents. Additional conveyance allowance is also payable. Income of the claimant for the year 1-4-1996 to 31-3-1997 (Assessment Year 1997- 98) includes salary, incentive bonus, additional conveyance allowance and any other income under different heads such as interest etc., was total Rs. 2,27,338/- and for the year from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998 (Assessment Year 1998-99) was As. 1,77,430/-. Obviously, the difference of As. 49,908/- from earlier year i.e., 1996-97 and 1997- 98 is because of non-availability of additional conveyance allowance, incentive bonus and may be for leave salary, from 22nd August, 1997 to 4th December, 1997, during which the claimant remained on leave. The claimant had claimed Rs. 1,77,430/-. Obviously, the difference of As. 49,908/- from earlier year i.e., 1996-97 and 1997- 98 is because of non-availability of additional conveyance allowance, incentive bonus and may be for leave salary, from 22nd August, 1997 to 4th December, 1997, during which the claimant remained on leave. The claimant had claimed Rs. 50,000/- as loss of income per year for entire future. This claim is without any basis and foundation inasmuch as the difference of Rs. 49,908/- in income from financial year 1996-97 and 1997-98 is on account of non-availability of additional conveyance, incentive bonus and may be salary for the period the claimant remained on medical leave. Though, there is no evidence of loss of salary for the period of medical leave availed by the claimant, even assuming that for the period of medical leave he was deprived of salary, then also the amount for such loss will not be As. 1,02,600/-, which has been awarded by the Tribunal as loss of salary for five months and twelve days (162 days) at the rate of As. 19,000/- per month. The claimant in his deposition has not stated that he was not paid salary for five months and twelve days for which he remained on medical leave. Be that as it may, even if the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of salary for the said period then the salary ) Rs. 19,000/- per month is without any basis. The claimant has neither disclosed his monthly salary in the claim petition nor in his deposition. Therefore, there was no basis for the Tribunal to arrive at monthly salary of Rs. 19,000/-. On the basis of the pay-scale which was applicable to the claimant in the year 1997, as discussed above, the monthly salary of claimant at any rate cannot exceed As. 11,000/-. in my considered opinion, awarding compensation at the rate of As. 19,000/- per month for loss of salary appears to be without any foundation or evidence. However, undisputedly, the claimant being a Development Officer, his monthly salary in the year 1997 can be taken at Rs. 11,000/- per month and as such the loss works out to As. 63,000/-. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal awarding As. 1,02,600/- cannot be sustained and is reduced to Rs. 63,000/-. 14. However, undisputedly, the claimant being a Development Officer, his monthly salary in the year 1997 can be taken at Rs. 11,000/- per month and as such the loss works out to As. 63,000/-. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal awarding As. 1,02,600/- cannot be sustained and is reduced to Rs. 63,000/-. 14. So far as loss of incentive bonus is concerned, it depends on the work done by the LIC agents and the premium paid by the policy holders. The Development Officer also gets some commission out of the premium amount paid by the policy holders in first year in the form of incentive bonus and not thereafter for subsequent years. But it cannot be said that because the claimant remained on leave for five months and twelve days the agent appointed by LIC did not work. Before the Tribunal, the claimant in his deposition admitted that the expenses on the treatment were reimbursed by his employer LIC and he rightly said so, yet he claimed compensation for treatment expenses. Treatment expenses are reimbursed and obviously, for this reason the claimant has not placed on record the treatment bills. If the treatment expenses had not been paid by the employer, then the claimant would have definitely filed the treatment bills before the Tribunal. Thus the Tribunal rightly held that the claimant is not entitled for the treatment expenses incurred, which has already been paid by his employer, except a bill of Rs. 305/- filed by the claimant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of As. 6,000/- ) Rs. 300/- per day under the head miscellaneous expnese, while the claimant remained in hospitals. Though there was no direct evidence to this effect but the fact that he was hospitalised and had incurred expenses and, therefore, this amount appears to be just and proper. The Tribunal awarded As. 46,000/- ( Rs. 1000 + As. 5000 + Rs. 25000 + Rs. 15000) for pain and suffering and for inconvenience suffered by the claimant for the injuries, from what has been discussed hereinabove, it is clear that the claimant underwent treatment at Bikaner and Jaipur. He remained on medical leave for a considerable period of 162 days. Thus, for the injuries which the claimant suffered, he underwent physical pain and mental agony. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the treatment, in my considered opinion a sum of As. He remained on medical leave for a considerable period of 162 days. Thus, for the injuries which the claimant suffered, he underwent physical pain and mental agony. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the treatment, in my considered opinion a sum of As. 75,000/- is just and proper for the general damages which includes physical pain and suffering, inconvenience and conveyance charges etc. Thus, the compensation under the head general damages is enhanced from Rs. 46,000/- to As. 75,000/-. From the various documents, it is evident that the injuries sustained by the claimant did not result in permanent disablement, which is obvious from the fact that neither the claimant got himself examined by Medical Board with regard to any disablement nor produced any certificate showing permanent disablement. The Tribunal rightly held that the injuries suffered by the claimant have not resulted in permanent disablement. From perusal of the various certificates noticed above, it is evident that the injuries sustained by the claimant have not resulted into permanent disablement and, therefore, after resuming duty, the claimant has not sustained any loss of income and would not sustain any loss of income in future as he is permanent employee of the LIC. 15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- towards loss of future income ) Rs. 10,000/- per annum. In my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future income is without any foundation and evidence and, therefore, is not justified and is to be set-aside as there is no evidence to support this finding. Having considered the entire material, in my considered opinion, the claimant is entitled for compensation of As. 63,000 + As. 6,600 + As. 75,000 + Rs. 305 = As. 1,44,905/-, rounded to As. 1,45,000/-. 16. No other point was pressed. 17. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the compensation is reduced to As. 1,45,000/-. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. No order as to costs.Ordered accordingly. *******